Shaming of Criminals

[Visor]

Saw on the news briefly as I walked by the TV that some serial rapist or something (Papewaio might be able to elaborate more) was released after serving his sentence.

I watched a few people saying he should be locked up, he will reoffend, etc.

I do not think this is a good stance to have personally. The judge/jury sentenced the man to the appropriate(?) level, with the understanding of the situation of the man's crimes and himself in general.

I don't think people should be rallying to throw him back in jail again after he served his time. That is not justice, that is vengeance.

I must say though, I come from an outside perspective and not one that has been affected by such things.

Thoughts?

With regards to the shaming, there will be things likes a current affair and today tonight or 60 minutes that will do shows on him every so often most likely. Whilst he will never have a proper life again, he does deserve some privacy and freedom from media attention IMO.

[HoreTore]

It shows a complete lack of respect for the law and justice by those who protest his release.

Sad, really.

[Fragony]

If he did his time he must be released. He wouldn't actually be released here though, we have tbs for that, he would go to a cllosed clinic and probably en up in the longstay

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Fardon has waged a 10-year battle for freedom after serving the full sentence he received for the rape, assault and sodomy of a woman in 1988.

The violent assault happened when Fardon was released from jail on parole after serving eight years of a 13-year sentence for the rape and assault of a girl, 12, and wounding of her 15-year-old sister.

Should have been executed.

I don't think people should be rallying to throw him back in jail again after he served his time. That is not justice, that is vengeance.

Revenge is the essence of justice. The point of courts and the rule of law is to make it civilized, and prevent errors and feuds, that's all. If one of the victims gunned him down in the street and I was on the jury I would vote to acquit.

People who favor light sentences because it makes them feel good about themselves have blood on their hands.

[Husar]

Why don't we jail and execute children then? Revenge can be applied to them as well.

[Montmorency]

Revenge is the essence of justice.

And that is precisely why "justice" is a self-serving delusion.

Next we'll be barking like dogs and calling it "reason" - oh wait...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Revenge is the essence of justice.

You don't need a court to get revenge, so what is the point of the system then?

[Montmorency]

You don't need a court to get revenge, so what is the point of the system then?

To maintain the legitimacy of the illusion; to contract out the taking of vengeance.

After all, what if SK couldn't personally take down every single criminal scum he encounters? He needs a government for that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You don't need a court to get revenge, so what is the point of the system then?

What do you mean you don't need a court? Very often you do. And without courts you often have a kind of blood feud system. Who wants that? The strong will oppress the weak. People from powerful families will murder and rape and get away with it because no one can risk going up against them.

What do you think the point of the system is?

[Montmorency]

What do you think the point of the system is?

To maintain order and uphold the state's monopoly on force. Different policies will have different effects on the maintenance of these.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The codification of law divorced it from its natural roots. It started as something organic, moulded by society; and has become something arbitrary, that moulds society rather than the reverse. Look, for example, at the social issues brought about in America's poor communities by mass incarceration.

If law doesn't flow from the society it serves, but rather particular demographics who monopolize it, then it will never properly fulfil the function it is intended to. The codification of law is the means by which minorities can monopolize it in this way.

[Montmorency]

If law doesn't flow from the society it serves, but rather particular demographics who monopolize it, then it will never properly fulfil the function it is intended to.

Has it really ever not been this way?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Vengeance is NOT the point of system of justice. The point of a system of justice is to replace revenge with a system of intimidation and minimized recidivism.

What would be the point of a system of laws if nobody knew what were going to be considered crimes? If most people know that murder is a crime and that they will be punished for it, they should be somewhat more hesitant about resorting to murder. It only modifies behavior if people are aware that it is a "wrong" and that they risk punishment if caught doing said activity. The threat of penalty serves to modify our behavior, in many cases even when there is no authority on scene. For example, most Americans driving on a lonely road on the open plains with no cars visible for multiple miles in any direction, who come to a stop sign on that road, will stop at the stop sign. We become conditioned to obey the law.

Despite this, we are all aware that it is impossible to deter all crime, so the second facet of a system of justice is to do something that will minimize recidivism. Executing a murderer cannot revive the victim -- it can only prevent the murderer from adding to their kill total. We treat children differently before the court because we assume that a greater degree of learning, experience and maturity will suffice to prevent recidivism and that physical separation etc. will not be required to accomplish this.

[Major Robert Dump]

Shaming could work like this:

[a completely inoffensive name]

What do you mean you don't need a court? Very often you do. And without courts you often have a kind of blood feud system. Who wants that? The strong will oppress the weak. People from powerful families will murder and rape and get away with it because no one can risk going up against them.

In all honesty Sasaki, how is this any different from the current system? Take anyway the last part and replace it with "because they have the ability to understand the system or hire people who understand it and abuse it to their benefit."

What do you think the point of the system is?

To render unto individuals their just desert in proportion to the crime they have committed or the crime they have suffered. This is very different from revenge which sets no cap on the limitations of punishments besides one own blood lust.

[Montmorency]

My vengeance demands no less than the extinction of the whole universe.

Furthermore, I decide on a case-by-case basis that this vengeance must be just, the most just vengeance in the history of justness and vengeance, because my logic and experience shows this to be the case.

Therefore, all of you die now and I'll call it a good start.

[Kralizec]

Vengeance is NOT the point of system of justice. The point of a system of justice is to replace revenge with a system of intimidation and minimized recidivism.

What would be the point of a system of laws if nobody knew what were going to be considered crimes? If most people know that murder is a crime and that they will be punished for it, they should be somewhat more hesitant about resorting to murder. It only modifies behavior if people are aware that it is a "wrong" and that they risk punishment if caught doing said activity. The threat of penalty serves to modify our behavior, in many cases even when there is no authority on scene. For example, most Americans driving on a lonely road on the open plains with no cars visible for multiple miles in any direction, who come to a stop sign on that road, will stop at the stop sign. We become conditioned to obey the law.

Despite this, we are all aware that it is impossible to deter all crime, so the second facet of a system of justice is to do something that will minimize recidivism. Executing a murderer cannot revive the victim -- it can only prevent the murderer from adding to their kill total. We treat children differently before the court because we assume that a greater degree of learning, experience and maturity will suffice to prevent recidivism and that physical separation etc. will not be required to accomplish this.

Good post. Allthough:

RevengeRetribution is the essence of justice. The point of courts and the rule of law is to make it civilized, and prevent errors and feuds, that's all.

Fixed it. Retribution is an essential part of state-dispensed justice, because most people expect to see criminal behaviour to be met with punishment - even when it's perfectly plausible that a specific suspect/convict would not be likely to commit a crime again. It's not only pour décourager les autres, but also to satisfy the public's desire for retribution, their approval and therefore legitimacy of the system.

That said; if the man served his time he is a free man and should be treated as such. Nulla poene sine lege is a cornerstone of a civilized society, and is quite frankly too important to be sacrificed to satifsfy people like the idiot protestors mentioned in the OP. Wether punishments should be harsher or lighter in general is another discussion.

[Sp4]

For some reason I read the thread title as 'Shaving of criminals'

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For some reason I read the thread title as 'Shaving of criminals'

Stop getting drunk during your haircuts and these "barbarous" dreams will stop......

[Kadagar_AV]

For some reason I read the thread title as 'Shaving of criminals'

It's probably Freudian... You should be worried about it.

We sure are.

[Kralizec]

The codification of law divorced it from its natural roots. It started as something organic, moulded by society; and has become something arbitrary, that moulds society rather than the reverse. Look, for example, at the social issues brought about in America's poor communities by mass incarceration.

If law doesn't flow from the society it serves, but rather particular demographics who monopolize it, then it will never properly fulfil the function it is intended to. The codification of law is the means by which minorities can monopolize it in this way.

Are you sure you have the right idea of what "codification" means? Because justice was far, far more arbitrary before codification.

Arguably the principle of Stare Decisis in common law would offer similar safeguards- but only if precedents remained the same indefinitely once introduced (and even then, there's the unlucky guy who gets to be convicted first, out of the blue). AFAIK even in England the overwhelming bulk of criminal law is found in statutes.